Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. There are 18 minutes left before the debate must end. I trust that no Member will speak for more than two minutes, as a courtesy to other Members.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Playing ping-pong with the other place, or receiving a Lords message, sounds rather genteel and polite, doesn’t it? However, I ask all Members almost to divorce their thinking from the issue on which we shall be voting later. Dare I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister, and indeed to the shadow Minister, that virtually everything they said was an irrelevance? The House has already debated the point, and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister noted, we have voted on it on five occasions and have voted in the affirmative. We are now concerned with a much bigger issue, which should, in my judgment, unite all quarters of the House: the issue of the supremacy of this place as the elected House of Commons. As we know, in the last century the House had exactly the same debate on the people’s Budget.

The Minister was right. The Lords amendments are wrecking amendments, and the unelectable seem to be relying on the unelected to try to frustrate the policies and the position of Her Majesty’s Government, which was well articulated during the general election campaign and has been debated incredibly thoroughly in the House and elsewhere. Last night the House of Lords played a very dangerous game. It said to the democratically accountable House of Parliament in this country, “We know better than you, the electorate; we know better than you, the elected Government.” We are on the cusp—issue apart—of a constitutional conundrum which will not end easily for the upper House. The authority of this place is now under significant and serious challenge. It is time for parties to unite, and for us to exercise and exert our supremacy in a democratic Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have just heard a Government Member pray in aid my right hon. Friend Paul Goggins, who is dead, and try to include him on the Government’s side of the argument. It is terribly wrong to do that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Thank you. I call Mr Barry Gardiner.

[Barry Gardiner]

The cuts to employment and support allowance will make the lives of disabled people harder, the lives of those with mental, cognitive and behavioural difficulties harder, and the lives of those with progressive or fluctuating conditions harder. There are 9,290 people in receipt of employment and support allowance in my borough, Brent. In 2012 one of my constituents was placed in the WRAG group, fit to work—

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I confirm that this afternoon the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments have reached agreement on the fiscal framework? This is the arrangement that underpins the significant new powers being delivered to the Scottish Parliament by the Scotland Bill, which is currently being considered in the other place. I believe that this agreement will allow the Bill to proceed through this Parliament, and I hope very much to receive a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament. I intend to make a full statement to the House tomorrow, and I will this evening appear by video link before the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, but I wanted to use this opportunity to draw the House’s attention to the fact that this significant agreement has been concluded. It will allow the Scottish Parliament, after the forthcoming Scottish elections, to take on the significant new powers in tax and welfare that will make it one of the most powerful and accountable devolved Parliaments in the world. I am sure that the whole House will welcome the fact that this agreement has been concluded.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The House will note that he will make a statement to the House tomorrow, which will be the opportunity for the House to discuss this matter, but he was absolutely right to bring this information to the House as soon as he was able to do so.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to congratulate the Scottish and UK Governments on reaching a funding deal for devolved Government in Scotland, and is it appropriate to take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of State for giving me personal advance notice of his point of order? I look forward to his statement tomorrow. I think it is appropriate to commend First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and Finance Secretary John Swinney for their efforts in fending off Treasury attempts to short-change Scotland to the tune of £7 billion. It would also be churlish not to acknowledge the final acknowledgement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the rule of no detriment was key to reaching success between the Scottish and UK Governments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has duly given notice to the House of the arguments he will make tomorrow.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and indeed to the First Minister and the Finance Secretary in Scotland, on reaching this agreement? It shows us that when two people want to tango, they certainly can dance. Will the Secretary of State indulge the House by letting us know whether we will see some of the documentation before the statement tomorrow? This is a hugely complex agreement with significant figures, and I wonder whether it will be possible to get advance sight of the fiscal framework well ahead of tomorrow’s statement.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you might provide some advice and give me your view. This afternoon in our proceedings, we were scheduled to have a Backbench Business Committee debate on serious youth violence and gang violence, which are blighting many of our inner-city areas. Unfortunately, because our business is overrunning, we will not have time for that debate and I will not be able to move my motion. However, do you not think it appropriate that we send out a message today, for those who may not be familiar with the proceedings of the House of Commons, that the fact that this debate has been delayed in no way sends a signal that this House does not appreciate the importance of the issue? I am pleased to inform the House that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee has indicated to me that an alternative slot will be found for us to have the debate at the earliest opportunity, which I hope will be next week.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that that is not strictly a point for the Chair to deal with. However, I commend him for taking the opportunity to make that very important point for those who are not familiar with the proceedings of this House, and to emphasise the fact that the subject matter of the debate that he tried to instigate today is extremely important and taken very seriously by Members from all parts of the House. I sincerely hope that the Backbench Business Committee will find time in the near future, when I am quite sure that the House will welcome the opportunity, to debate the hon. Gentleman’s very important motion.



Education and Adoption Bill (programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Education and Adoption Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 22 June 2015 (Education and Adoption Bill (Programme)) and 16 September 2015 (Education and Adoption Bill (Programme) (No.2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Margot James.)

Universal Credit Work Allowance

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I wish briefly to divert the Minister’s attention to homelessness and, in particular, its rise in London. A network of charities have said that the rise is a result of not only the chronic housing shortage, but cuts to welfare reform and social security, particularly universal credit. I do not know now whether the Minister is aware that last year the level of homelessness rose to a point where 7,500 people were sleeping rough on the streets of London. Does he recognise that universal credit will exacerbate that problem? Can he say how the rolling out—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. An intervention has to be very short, and I think the Minister has got the gist of this one.

[Justin Tomlinson]

That is why it is key that this Government are committed to building and delivering more affordable housing, particularly in London. I welcome the measures that the Chancellor set out to make that happen. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) may laugh, but we saw record low house building under the last Labour Government, robbing people again of opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It will be obvious to the House that a great many Members wish to speak in the debate and that we have limited time because there is another pressing debate following this one. I hope that in the spirit of the happiness of the new year, I will not have to impose a formal time limit, but that Members will, out of respect for other Members and other points of view, take six minutes or less to complete their contributions. We will see how the experiment works. If it does not work, we will go back to the bad, old year way of me telling you that you have got to stop.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. My “happy new year” experiment has not worked. I will therefore impose a formal time limit of six minutes on Bach-Bench speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

As admirable as the hon. Gentleman’s party might feel his efforts are in stating that we have to cut welfare, the problem is that under this Government, welfare spending has persistently gone up. One would suggest, therefore, that your tactics do not work in the real world.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think the hon. Lady meant the hon. Gentleman’s tactics, not mine.

[Oliver Dowden]

I would ask the hon. Lady to consider the facts. I believe that the OBR is projecting a decline in the proportion of our national income spent on welfare over this Parliament, so the plan is actually working. If Labour Members do not wish to reduce welfare spending, there are only three alternatives. First, they could choose to cut spending on public services, but I have heard nobody suggest that, instead of making this reform, we should cut spending on the NHS or education. Alternatively, they could advocate an increase in personal or any other form of taxation, but I happen to think that in this country we already have unsustainably high levels of taxation. The third alternative is that Labour Members—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I have to reduce the time limit to five minutes. I also remind the House, because perhaps newer Members have forgotten, having been away for Christmas, that if one makes a speech in the Chamber, it is courteous and required by the rules of the House that one stays in the Chamber certainly for the following speech and usually for at least two speeches thereafter. The people who have not done so today know who they are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I wish you and everyone in the House a very happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, it will not be a very happy new year for many people out there on universal credit.

I am very proud of where I come from in the north-west—the St Helens and Knowsley constituencies. We were at the very centre of the powerhouse during the industrial revolution, but sadly we have lived through deindustrialisation. We have struggled to provide new jobs for our constituents, who received good pay in manufacturing. Unfortunately, most jobs are now in services. Many are insecure, involving zero-hours contracts and agency and part-time work, and those that are secure provide very low pay.

The people in my constituency want to work. They are hard workers. They want to be respected, and they want the dignity of providing a home for their families, clothing them and putting food on the table; but they struggle. Many of them go to food banks, and that is not right; it is unfair.

If the Department for Work and Pensions were part of local government, someone’s feet would not touch the ground. For the Department not to carry out an assessment of the impact of taking billions of pounds in benefit away from the poorest people is totally unacceptable. No one would get away with it in local government, but this is central Government, and there has been no impact assessment. Did the Secretary of State not want one? He repeatedly insisted that people would not be worse off under universal credit because of the “into work” benefit changes that were announced in the summer Budget, but now the Government have admitted that that is not the case.

At the beginning, universal credit was sold on the basis that it would encourage people into work. Some went along with that, thinking that perhaps it was right, but they were warned by all the IT experts that it simply was not practical to expect the roll-out to take place in the existing timeframe, and it has repeatedly been delayed. Unfortunately, however, my constituency has had its roll-out. We are on universal credit at the moment—not all of us, but the latest assessment is that there are 1,586 families on universal credit. [Interruption.] That was the estimate in November 2015 and it came from the House of Commons Library. I am sorry but I would rather take the Library’s word than the Government’s. If you have a problem, go and sort it. Of those 1,586 claimants in November 2015, 510 were in work; 510 will be affected. The facts are from the House of Commons Library. They have not been proven wrong to me as yet. Lone parents—adults who are not disabled—will lose £2,400 in net income in April next year. A single person or a couple, where one or more are disabled, will lose £2,000 in April this year. A single mother of two working full time on the minimum wage will lose £2,400.

Too many of the jobs in my constituency are low-paid and insecure. We have many agency workers and the Government have done nothing about agency working. Agency workers turn up for work, they are sent home from work. They could have a week’s work now, a week’s work in a fortnight or work for three months. One agency even offered two week’s work for free for the employer, after which they would guarantee that person an interview for a permanent job—for 12 months. Not many of them got a permanent job. We had people who were told they if they worked at Tata and Jaguar through the agency for 12 months they would get full-time jobs. But it did not happen; they finished just a few weeks before. Seven weeks later, some of them were called back for three weeks. That is what is going on in the real world out there where I live.

The reason benefits have gone up is that the Government of the day’s economic strategy has failed miserably. Do not talk to me about debt in this country, because that has a lot to do with it. We paid off more debt than any Government on record. What is more, we got up to 1% of GDP and we paid £38 billion of the debt. We had to borrow money to save the banks and working-class people’s savings. So do not talk to me about that. We are only up to 0.4% of GDP now. Benefits have soared because you have not produced the jobs that you said would be produced—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I allowed the hon. Lady to get away with it once when she said “you”. If she wishes to attack the Minister, she has to say the Minister or the Government.

[Marie Rimmer]

I do apologise—the Minister, or the Secretary of State, who is not present and often takes his leave when we are on such subjects.

It is totally unacceptable—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady has had her five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I apologise for not saying before the hon. Lady rose that I now have to reduce the time limit to four minutes.

[Maria Caulfield]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will be brief.

I want to pick up on a couple of points made in the debate. First, I want to address the economic aspect of the issue. I have pressed the shadow Minister on the matter this afternoon. We have had many debates on this issue and on tax credits. Labour Members have said that they are committed to reducing the deficit and debt in this country, and the shadow Minister has said that he is committed to reducing welfare spending by £12 billion, but yet again today we have not had any answers as to how that would happen. To give credit to the SNP, the effective Opposition in this House, while I disagree with its alternatives, at least it has some. Perhaps the shadow Minister in his winding-up speech will acknowledge how he would tackle the welfare saving that needs to be made. If it is not through savings on universal credit, how would he propose to make it?

I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff North (Craig Williams) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham). They produced figures that show that those moving to universal credit, with the tapering and transitional arrangements, will not be worse off in cash terms. They have shone a light on the smoke and mirrors from Labour Members.

With all the changes that are happening during this Parliament, and with the introduction of the national living wage, someone working full time on the current minimum wage will be £5,000 a year better off. With the free childcare being introduced for three to five-year-olds, a family will benefit by about £5,000 a year. The rise in tax thresholds—the threshold is currently £11,000 a year and the proposal is to increase it to £12,500 by the end of this Parliament—will benefit low-wage families. That is not to mention the increase in employment, a significant percentage of which is full-time work.

On my second and more important point, I have been disappointed by the patronising and insulting laughter from the shadow Minister when we suggested single parents could get back into work and life coaches would be helpful in that regard. He laughed that off as if that were something that we could only dream about.

I will tell him why I believe so passionately in this. I grew up in a working-class family. I went to school in the socialist state of Lambeth in London, where there was little or no hope or aspiration for working-class kids such as me. We got no careers advice. My careers advice was the housing office number if I got pregnant at 16. It was about how to claim my first benefits. There was no sixth-form advice or advice on how to go to university, so I never got there. There was just benefits advice, but that is the socialist way, because there is no hope or aspiration for people on a low income.

This universal credit debate is more than just about pounds and pence in people’s pockets. It is about a fundamental shift to where people can work and those who do work are paid well for doing so. I will support the Government in their move to universal credit. I urge Opposition Members to do the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

“A guid new year tae yin and a’ and mony may ye see.” I thank the Labour Front Bench—[Interruption.] It is okay; I will send that up to Hansard. I thank the Labour Front Bench and particularly—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is using perfectly good language and most of us understand it perfectly.

[Chris Stephens]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

May I thank the Labour party and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) for bringing this motion to the House? I want to start, as he did, by discussing the parliamentary procedures and the concerns I had about how this change was made. My view is that the Statutory Instruments Committee should be used to address technical changes to legislation and amendments. This was not a technical amendment; this was a policy change, and this was a procedural vehicle to sneak in the most damaging legislation and avoid public scrutiny. At the SIC we were subjected to the usual sunshine and cheerful rhetoric from the Government members, so much so that if we were playing Tory buzzphrase bingo we would have won the snowball after a couple of minutes, because the reality of this change is that a lone parent who currently earns the national minimum wage can work up to 22 hours, but with this cut to working allowance they would lose that support after 12 hours.

I am still waiting for the answers to many of the questions I asked at the SIC, and I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will answer some of them. First, what assessment has been made of the effect of the changes to working families and their ability to take on part-time work? Does this disincentivise work and lead to workers reducing their hours? It seems to me that it is human nature that if there is a chance of someone losing benefit payments and they can save that benefit only by cutting their working hours, that is exactly what they will do. Will there be any mitigation of the effects on their benefits? How will carers be affected, in particular young carers? Talking about young workers, what about those aged under 25, who will not get access to the national living wage?

I also ask this question again: what impact assessment has been done in respect of Department for Work and Pensions staff, who are the lowest paid civil servants in the country—so much so that when staff from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are merged into the DWP, they earn £2,000 more than those in the DWP? These are staff who are subjected to a 1% pay cap, and who are paying, and have had to pay, increased pension and national insurance contributions; and 40% of DWP staff are currently on tax credits.

We have heard so much again today about aspiration. What message does the cut to working allowance send to those who aspire? The reality is that people are increasingly aware that the ladder of social mobility is being systematically pulled up ahead of them, and that no matter how hard they work or how much they aspire to a better life for their children and themselves, they will be punished for not being born into the right sort of family. That is the reality of this cut to UC work allowance.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I made a point of order earlier about when the impact assessments were published, and I understand that there is an inquiry. When we heard the Secretary of State announce that they had been published, my researcher went to the Vote Office and found that they were not available. A phone call was made to the Vote Office in Members Lobby, which said that they had just arrived. This is not right, and I would like your advice about how we can hold the Government to account when they do not publish impact assessments until after the Secretary of State has got to his feet.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. If a mistake has been made by the Vote Office, I am quite sure that Mr Speaker will be annoyed on behalf of the House.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I can see that the Secretary of State has something to say, and I am delighted to call him further to that point of order.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise only to say that we sent the impact assessments to the House authorities before 5 o’clock. I gather that there was some technical hitch in the House before they were able to get them to the Vote Office, but that was not a problem of our making. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Secretary of State has explained what he and his Department have done. If there has been a mistake in getting the papers between the Secretary of State’s office and the Chamber, that will be investigated. It should not have happened, but there is no point in Members shouting about it from a sedentary position. The Secretary of State has apologised for his part in any mistake, if such a mistake has been made. [Interruption.] No, I will not have any more shouting about this. It is a technical problem, and it is not strictly a matter for the Chair, except in so far as saying that Members ought to be provided with all the information necessary to enable them fully to take part in a debate. If that has not happened, there will be an investigation, but one way or another, there is no point in any further shouting about it.

[Emily Thornberry]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance as to whether Members can be given sufficient information even if papers are provided some 10 minutes before a debate, given the nature of the impact assessments. If we are to read them properly and understand them, surely Members, if at all possible, should be given more than a few minutes’ notice.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I simply observe that the debate started at 5.34 pm and it is now 6.36 pm, so it has been under way for an hour. I appreciate that the Chair insists that Members of Parliament should take part in the debate and concentrate on the speech being made at any particular moment, but I am sure it is not beyond the ingenuity of intelligent Members to be able to participate in the debate while also looking at the papers that are now available to them. It would have been better had the papers been here earlier, but I am quite certain that this debate will go on for another three hours and 23 minutes and, if they now have the papers, Members ought to be able to multitask to the extent of listening to the debate and reading the papers at the same time. That does not mean, if a mistake has happened, that I condone it; if there has been one, it will be thoroughly investigated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It is obvious that a great many people wish to speak this evening and that there is a limited amount of time. I am afraid that I will have to impose a time limit of five minutes after the SNP spokesman.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am reluctant to introduce a formal time limit at this stage, but if all Members take six minutes then everyone will have the chance to speak. I hope that I will not have to require a time limit and that Members will behave courteously towards other Members.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate all those who have made their wonderful maiden speeches today.

I received a tweet from a constituent that said: “I’m seriously scratching my head to that bit.” Members might ask, “What bit?”, because we were scratching our heads to quite a few bits of the Chancellor’s Budget speech. My constituent was referring to the bit about the minimum wage, or the “living wage” as the Chancellor likes to call it. I fully support the increase to £7.20 an hour, rising to £9 by 2020, but that is an increase in the minimum wage; it is not a living wage, however many times Government Members like to say it is. As I have said previously, “You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time”, yet I fear that is what they are trying to do.

The Living Wage Foundation currently considers that to achieve a minimal acceptable standard of living someone must be paid £7.85 outside London, and £9.15 in inner London. That is the living wage. If the Chancellor needs some help, perhaps he could congratulate Brent council on its work in championing the £9.15 living wage, and on incentivising employers to pay it. The Opposition need to humanise the Government’s policies as they seem not to know many of the people whom their policies adversely affect. The living wage calculation is also based on tax credits that have helped to boost low wages, but if those are removed, the living wage would be £11.65 an hour—that is how much someone would need to be paid if tax credits are removed.

I want to support working people—we all do, and, I might add, more seriously on the Labour Benches. The Chancellor seems to feel that working people live a lavish lifestyle that he wants to curb. Before the election, Jenny Jones asked the Prime Minister to put to bed rumours that he planned to cut child tax credit and restrict child benefit. David Cameron replied: “Well thank you, Jenny. I don’t want to do that.” What has changed?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I must interrupt the hon. Lady because although she is new to the House at the moment, she is not really new. The Prime Minister is referred to in this Chamber as the Prime Minister.

[Dawn Butler]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that at the time he was not the Prime Minister, but I apologise.

Brent has the above average number of 5,609 lone parents, which is 11% of all households. Some 64% of families in Brent Central are receiving tax credits. It is okay to have universal credit—I agree with that; I used to work in the employment service—but the Institute for Fiscal Studies has stated that 13 million families will be affected by the benefit cap, and that 3.4 million working families will lose £1,000 a year. There will be an increase in absolute child poverty.

Why is that happening? In Brent, we have large Muslim and Irish communities. Many families have more than three children per household. I would like to challenge the Chancellor to do a husband swap with some of my constituents. I am sure they would be able to give him advice on managing budgets and debt. Given that family breakdown costs the country an estimated £49 billion a year, this is a false economy. The OBR has forecast that household debt will rise even above the record levels seen prior to the crash in 2007-08. What does that mean for the future of our country? The root cause of welfare spending is low pay and high housing costs, so in one fell swoop the Chancellor could build more affordable and social housing, and more people would be in work and paying taxes. We should just stop playing politics and make it happen.

Millions of households are forecast to plunge into debt. We will see another increase in homelessness and children living in absolute and relative poverty. That is not scaremongering—this afternoon the IFS has said just that. Is this really the legacy that the Chancellor wants as he launches his bid to become the Prime Minister? He has lost weight, he has got longer trousers and he has styled his hair differently. All he needs now are some workable policies for working people. The Chancellor always mentions fixing the roof while the sun is shining, but he always forgets to mention the Thatcher legacy of £19 billion worth of household repairs that Labour had to make. Now, with these supposed fixes, the first Tory Budget in almost 20 years is taking the roof from over the heads of my constituents. He should be a little bit embarrassed about that.

The Chancellor spoke about apprenticeships. The reality is that the majority of apprenticeships in the previous Parliament were rebranded jobs. People were already working for companies and their jobs were rebranded as apprenticeships. We have actually seen a reduction in apprenticeships of almost a quarter, from 82.3% under the Labour Government to 63.2% under this Government.

As I said, I used to work in the employment service. I welcome the simplifying of the benefit system, but I am afraid the Chancellor needs to seek some advice from the Social Security Advisory Committee and examine any variations in his policy. Do not say that young people in university have a future and then burden them with about £53,000 of debt when they finish. It was estimated that 923,000 young people would take up maintenance grants in 2014-15. Do not tell me that that will not have an effect on my constituents and young people in Brent Central when they are choosing whether to go on to further and higher education.

This is a reminder of who the Budget is really for: the haves, not the have-nots. I see nothing in the Budget that aims to address the scandal of a 50% increase in long-term youth unemployment among black, Asian and minority ethnic—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Dawn Butler]

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I was hoping the hon. Lady would voluntarily bring her remarks to a close.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Let me begin, as others have, by congratulating all those who have made their maiden speech during the debate: my hon. Friends the Members for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and the hon. Members for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) and for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey). The House enjoyed hearing from each of them today and we look forward to hearing from them again in the years to come.

Yesterday’s Budget contained a number of ideas that we support, not least because we campaigned for them at the election. For example, we argued that the pathway to a surplus that the Chancellor committed to in March would in fact lead to spending cuts so extreme that they would not be credible. We discovered yesterday that the Chancellor had caved in and accepted our argument. He has deferred the planned surplus for a further year, and I have to say that that was a sensible U-turn. He might have told us that that was what it was, but he did not. As a result of his U-turn, the scale of the cuts, though still substantial, will no longer be as extreme as he suggested in March.

We said that it was unreasonable to try to take £12 billion out of the social security budget in two years. The Chancellor has done a U-turn on that as well. He now plans to do it over four years. We also campaigned for Britain to have a pay rise, stating that an increase in the national minimum wage was key to reducing the cost of welfare. The Chancellor has accepted that argument. On the basis that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we welcome his change of heart on that as well.

It is a great disappointment, however, that productivity growth is so low. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) was right to draw the House’s attention to what the Office for Budget Responsibility had to say about that. It has stated that productivity growth has fallen short of expectations once again. It is a relief that this Budget speech at least mentioned productivity—there was no such mention in March—although it was accompanied by a very thin package. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) pointed out that the cancellation of the electrification of the TransPennine line was a glaring failure if we are to bring about the infrastructure investment necessary to improve productivity across the country. It is a big disappointment that so little is being done.

It is a tragedy that the Chancellor is accompanying his welcome U-turns with such a swingeing attack on the incomes of working families. The analysis published today by the Institute for Fiscal Studies highlights the fact that the proposed tax credit cuts focus on working families. It is working families that are going to be hit. They have been badly let down by a party that had promised to be a party for working people. That promise seems to have been torn to shreds in everything other than the rhetoric. Vital support has been ripped away at a time when so many of those working families are already struggling to make ends meet.

In 2010, the Chancellor promised

“we will bring down the benefits bill”.

At the beginning of this year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said:

“Real terms benefit spending…is forecast to be almost exactly the same in 2015–16 as it was in 2010–11.”

The benefits bill has not been brought down. The reason is that, in the previous Parliament, the Government failed to tackle low wages and rising private rents, which are the real drivers of welfare spending. As a result we saw 400,000 more people who are in work forced to rely on housing benefit to pay the rent, and 1.5 million more people paid less than a living wage at the end of the Parliament than was the case at the beginning. That led to a £25 billion overspend on welfare by the Secretary of State’s Department. With this Budget, working families are being told to pay for that failure—so much for being on the side of working people.

The Chancellor is cutting tax credits immediately, but taking five years to increase pay. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, the tax credits cuts hit immediately, full scale, from the beginning of the next financial year. The pay rises intended to compensate for them, which in fact do not compensate for them, are being phased in over five years. Working families are losing out in a very big way. This is not about making work pay, but about making working families pay, which is wrong.

Today, the IFS said:

“Unequivocally, tax credit recipients in work will be made worse off”.

That is the reality of what was announced in the Budget yesterday. The Chancellor’s decision to cut tax credits leaves 3 million families worse off. Working families who are doing the right thing are finding that the rug has been pulled out from under them. A couple with one person working full-time on average earnings will lose more than £2,000 in tax credits next year. A single parent trying to provide for her two children, working 16 hours a week, will lose £860 in tax credits next year. Those losses are nowhere made up for by the modest pay rise that that person is likely to receive.

I cannot help wondering what happened to the families test. The Prime Minister promised that

“every single domestic policy that government comes up with will be examined for its impact on the family.”

Well, here are working families being hammered. The measures clearly fail the families test, but they are being announced nevertheless. That is another broken promise from this Government when so many families are losing out.

The IFS says that the striking consequence of yesterday’s cuts is that the work incentive effects of universal credit—if we ever see universal credit; only 1% of benefit claimants have been switched on to it so far, and at that rate it will take 150 years or so to roll out fully—are being substantially reduced.

I have made it clear that we welcome the increase in the national minimum wage—indeed, we campaigned for it. However, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, just because the Chancellor calls it a living wage does not make it a living wage. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) emphasised that point in particular. The Living Wage Foundation, the custodian of the living wage, made the position clear last night. It said that

“this is effectively a higher National Minimum Wage and not a Living Wage.”

That is the reality. Simply calling it a living wage does not make it one. The Chancellor is trying to sell us a dud.

That was not the only dud in the Budget speech. I cannot resist the temptation of quoting what the Financial Times said about the Budget speech yesterday: “When you heard” the Chancellor

“say six times in his Budget speech that he had moved British towards a ‘lower tax society’, he made a small but important mistake. He really meant ‘higher tax’.”

Of course that is right. The living wage is based on the full take-up of benefits such as tax credits and housing benefit. With the cuts to tax credits, the current figure for the living wage will no longer be enough and will certainly have to be revised upwards. We are in favour of tax cuts for those on middle incomes and we support the increases in the personal allowance and the higher rate threshold, but cuts to tax credit mean yet again that the Chancellor is giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

What a missed opportunity the Budget was to promote a proper living wage by introducing Labour’s plan for tax breaks for firms that pay a proper living wage! My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) drew attention to the excellent initiative that Brent Council has introduced along those lines. It is clearly succeeding, and our make-work-pay contracts could have started to boost wages straight away.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) was right to point out that, once again, young people have been badly hit by the Budget, but where there are good reforms, we will support them. We support the Government’s plan for a youth obligation, which is strikingly similar to our manifesto pledge and the Institute for Public Policy Research proposal that underpins it. The principle of earn or learn is right. Of course, it is absolutely vital that the right exemptions to the withdrawal of housing support should be in place. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) underlined that absolutely rightly. Can the Minister confirm in winding up that young people leaving care, those who are at risk of abuse or homelessness and those who are the parents of young children will still be eligible for housing support under these proposals?

We will not support cuts for disabled people. We were told in the election campaign that the £12 billion package would protect the vulnerable and the disabled, but cutting employment support allowance will hit those who are assessed as not fit for work, which is the reason why they are not on jobseeker’s allowance. That includes people with cancer and people with Parkinson’s disease. Ministers said that they would protect sick people in these changes; instead, they are cutting their support, and that will hit some very vulnerable people very hard. It will also drive even more claimants into the ESA support group at even higher cost. In 2010, Ministers said that they would cut the cost of ESA. In fact, given their failure to manage assessments and the failure of the Work programme for ESA claimants, costs have rocketed. ESA will cost £4.5 billion more this year than they said it would in 2011, but that is no justification for punishing the sick.

There is nothing in the Budget to boost the number of homes being built. The cost of renting and buying is soaring out of reach, particularly in London and south-east. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) drew attention to that. Yet again, rather than tackling the housing shortage and bringing rents down, the Government have chosen to cut housing support.

We welcome the Chancellor’s U-turns from his election campaign, but this is not the Budget that working people need. It leaves working people worse off. Working people needed a Budget that supported them and their families, not one that cut the support that so many people rely on. We support reform that protects those who cannot work and that makes work pay. We will not support cuts that make working families pay.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the Minister, the House should note that several Members who have taken part in the debate were not here for the beginning of the speech of the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). That is discourteous. Some Members who have taken part in the debate are still not here. That is extremely discourteous and has been noted.

Housing Costs (Reformed Welfare System)

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I appreciate that there is a feeling the House is not very busy and that the whole afternoon and evening stretches before us, but another debate is scheduled to take place after this one. If everyone follows the example of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) and speaks for approximately 10 minutes, all Members who have indicated that they wish to speak will have the opportunity to do so. I will not impose a time limit at the moment. The hon. Gentleman has set a good example, and I hope that everyone will follow it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Teresa Pearce]

That is a valid point. It is something that we all encounter locally when we talk to housing providers. It needs to be addressed, so I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.

Another problem for private renters is that the change to local housing allowance is further restricting their access to the widest selection of available properties. Local housing allowance rates match only the 30th per- centile of homes within a broad rental market area. The Government reduced that from the 50th percentile. I believe that that needs to be re-evaluated urgently, especially in London. Rents have risen, but the local housing allowance was frozen in 2012-13 and uprated by 1% in 2014. There has been a reduction in the number of homes that can be rented out at that rate.

An analysis by Crisis shows that across Britain, one in 10 local housing allowance rates for 2015-16 is 5% or more lower than the estimated 30th percentile of local rents. Those include 77 rates that have already benefited from an additional increase due to the targeted affordability fund. As was outlined in the Select Committee’s report, analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that rent levels did not decline as a result of the cap. In fact, the most recent rental figures show a 1.8% rise across the stock in England and a rise of 2.4% in London. That is well above the recent 1% cap and means that additional properties will fall out of the reach of those on benefit.

Private renters should not have to choose between having a roof over their heads and eating, but increasingly that is becoming a daily choice for many people in my constituency. The Government should consider increasing LHA rates by more than 1% annually in more pressured areas. Although the Committee welcomed the introduction of the targeted affordability fund as a means of increasing LHA levels in areas of higher rents, some areas may see rents rising by more than the maximum of 4% a year. The Government should amend the targeted affordability fund so that it can be paid at higher levels in areas where rent increases are greater than 4%. It should also use available rents rather than stock rents as a measure for the rental increase.

Rents are currently unaffordable across the private sector. In 2012, the Money Advice Trust stated that rent arrears were the fastest growing debt problem it had encountered and that the number of calls it received on the issue had risen by 37% on the previous year. At the end of 2014, the National Landlords Association reported that almost a third of private landlords had seen arrears that year. There were a record number of evictions of renters across the social and private sector in 2014 as a result of a combination of factors, including the bedroom tax, benefit sanctions, increased numbers renting with the reduced LHA rate, and rising private sector rents.

Recent figures from Crisis have also shown that the No. 1 leading cause of homelessness now is eviction from a private tenancy. The figures highlight not just the lack of affordability for renters when having to manage competing living costs, but how unsustainable rising rents will be for the private rented sector without Government intervention.

The Government must continue to monitor homelessness levels and take action to mitigate the impact on households and local authorities. The Department for Communities and Local Government reported that rough sleeping increased by 14% in autumn 2014. I am regularly contacted by constituents who tell me that they cannot be housed by their local council because they are not in priority need and that they have no option but to live in overcrowded accommodation with family members or to couch-surf, which is code for sleeping on the floor of a friend’s house. If they can be housed, they have been told that their only option is temporary accommodation. In my local area of Bexley, people are often temporarily accommodated in Manchester and Bolton, which means having to uproot their children from school and leave their support networks behind.

It always worries me greatly that, while a number of landlords are reputable, a number of others are not. There are private landlords in my constituency who line their pockets while renters struggle to pay their rent. I wrote to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Treasury in November to ask about the Let Property campaign, which was launched in September 2013 to target the residential property letting market. Specifically, I wanted to know whether it had been successful in closing the tax gap on let properties, but the responses I received were not encouraging. They said it was too early to tell, but one of the figures they did give me was an estimate that the tax gap on letting income was just over £500 million. It is absolutely disgraceful that public money is going to landlords who do not then pay their way or their tax. We need to address that urgently.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the hon. Lady addresses any further points. She may have been able to count, but she has now spoken for 12 minutes. I trusted her to speak for 10 minutes, so I trust that she is going to wind up very soon.

[Teresa Pearce]

I will finish by saying that I think this is a most urgent issue. I do not usually quote from Conservative manifestos, but the 1951 Conservative manifesto said:

“Housing is the first of the social services. It is also one of the keys to increased productivity. Work, family life, health and education are all undermined by overcrowded homes.”

That was true then, and it is true now.

Housing Benefit (Abolition of Social Sector Size Criteria)

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Members tend to forget that when they accept interventions and thus increase the time limit for their speech by a minute, they deprive their colleagues of the opportunity to speak. I have to reduce the time limit to three minutes. I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. If hon. Members wish to complain they will not speak at all. If the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) takes four minutes her colleagues will not get a chance to speak. Is this a question of being selfish or of being reasonable? Mr Shannon.

[Jim Shannon]

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to add my comments to this debate.

We have discussed this issue before, as hon. Members have said. It is something that our constituents bring to our attention, and they express concern and anxiety about it. We have to highlight again in the Chamber the fact that it affects the most vulnerable people in society: parents, those suffering with disabilities, and the elderly.

I should like to give the Northern Ireland perspective. As we all know, the legislation comes straight from Westminster to Northern Ireland, and the devolved Administration and our Minister are responsible for its implementation. Earlier this year, my party took the initiative in the Northern Ireland Assembly to set aside some £18 million in our block fund money to address the bedroom tax. That has been held up by the talks process, which is ongoing at this moment. My party opposes the bedroom tax in this Chamber, and in Northern Ireland, where we have control of it, if the legislation gets beyond the talks process.

We can see how this issue affects families. We can see the problems for foster parents; for disabled families with a carer; and for families with two children of different genders, who are now required to share a room. Some 66% of existing Northern Ireland Housing Executive tenants and 62% of working-age housing benefit recipients come into the category of under-occupiers, according to information and facts in The Guardian earlier this year. Indeed, 38% of current NIHE working-age housing benefit recipients under-occupy by two rooms or more. The bedroom tax is a massive issue, and we oppose it. An article in The Belfast Telegraph has stuck in my mind. It said that

“officially, foster children don’t count as real so if yours has his/her own room, that’s also deductible…if your son or daughter only spends a few nights a week with you because’

the family relationship has broken up, that does not count. If someone has a soldier son or daughter in the Army who sometimes comes home, that does not count either.

There are many reasons why we are concerned about the bedroom tax. I am also very much concerned about discretionary housing payment. The Government say that they have set aside £30 million for that, but people will still lose benefits, with an impact of £100 million. People on disability living allowance will receive £2.51 extra a week, but they will lose £14 a week in housing benefit because of the bedroom tax. So 230,000 disabled people who receive disability living allowance will lose an average of £728 every year in housing benefit. Those figures are substantial. We must work together to ensure that those who need the most help do not lose out. With that in mind, I wholeheartedly support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Unlike the shadow Secretary of State I have listened to every speech in this debate in the hope that three questions would be answered—this is a Labour motion, and Labour Members have three questions to answer. First, how they would pay for this motion, which we recognise would cost in the order of £0.5 billion a year? The Minister for Disabled People completely demolished the hon. Lady’s argument about where the money would come from. The Leader of the Opposition said that Labour would not make any unfunded promises, but we have one before us today. The bulk of the money to pay for this motion will allegedly come from “ensuring that the building trade pays tax”, from which Labour claims we will get £380 million. It does not seem to be aware, however, that we have done that already. In the autumn statement 2013, measures to take effect in April 2014 will raise £400 million a year, so the bulk of that money has already gone.

The second point that was mentioned is reversing the stamp duty reserve tax charge, which is money from pension funds and savers. It is true that we can get money by taking it from pension funds—indeed, Labour has quite a record of taxing pension funds—but I am not convinced that that is the place to find money for welfare. The third measure Labour proposed is ending the employee shareholder scheme which, given that it wants to implement the policy in 2015-16, is rather puzzling as the policy costs nothing in 2015-16. In other words, the whole £0.5 billion is either raided from pension funds or does not exist at all.

The second question that we hoped would be answered is why it is fair to apply this principle to the private rented sector and not to social tenants. In other words, during all its time under the local housing allowance scheme, Labour was perfectly content for private sector tenants to pay for extra bedrooms, but not social tenants. When the shadow Secretary of State was briefly in the Chamber and we intervened to ask that question, she gave two reasons. The first was that the local housing allowance was not retrospective. On that basis, do Labour Members think it is okay to say that people in new social tenancies should pay for a spare bedroom? They are not saying that at all, so clearly they are inconsistent.

The hon. Lady’s second argument was absolutely bizarre. She said that people in social housing tend to have secure tenancies while those in the private rented sector tend not to. That presumably means that private rented sector tenants are more vulnerable than social tenants, yet Labour is willing to ask private tenants to pay for a spare bedroom, and not social tenants. Utterly incoherent.

The third thing I waited for in the hon. Lady’s speech—just like her leader who forgot the deficit, she forgot to say how Labour would pay for this policy—was a word that never passed her lips: overcrowding. She did not mention the plight of overcrowded people once, and we heard case studies of people affected by these measures during the debate—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. People seem to be talking about all sorts of things around the Chamber. The Minister ought to be heard.

[Steve Webb]

Case studies were mentioned, including one from the shadow Secretary of State who then forgot to tell the House that discretionary housing payments were covering the shortfall. Let me share an example of a previously overcrowded family. Suzanna lived in a four-bedroom home in south Yorkshire when this measure was introduced, and decided to downsize. She joined the HomeSwapper scheme to find a more appropriate property and said:

“I was impressed with the quantity of matches that HomeSwapper provided…the lady I swapped with…had needed to move for a long time but her landlord had been unable to move her. She desperately needed the space for her overcrowded family.”

That is the sort of thing this policy is helping to achieve, but the voice of overcrowded tenants is not being heard in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Robertson]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could protect this Back Bencher from a Minister making a statement that I never made. I never said we were the worst area of all. I said we were one of the worst. That is completely different. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not strictly a point of order. He wished to correct the record and he has done so. He has also taken up more time in this short debate.

[Steve Webb]

I give way.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 2—Power to impose requirements about factors used to determine each benefit.

Government new clause 3—Power to impose requirements about dealing with a deficit or surplus.

Government new clause 4—Requirement to wind up scheme in specified circumstances.

Government new clause 5—Policies about winding up.

Government new clause 6—Working out which assets are available for the provision of which benefits.

Government amendments 2, 3, 5 to 23, 25, 31, 32, 38, 43, 47, 51 to 55.

[Steve Webb]

It is good to see a packed House for this vital pensions Bill. The amendments are in two groups that correspond broadly with the Bill’s two main themes—the new definitions of pension schemes and pension scheme benefits, and budget pensions flexibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 8—Power to require employer to arrange advice for purposes of section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Great Britain).

Government new clause 9—Independent advice: consequential amendments—Great Britain.

Government new clause 10—Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Northern Ireland.

Government new clause 11—Power to require employer to arrange advice for purposes of section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Northern Ireland).

Government new clause 12—Independent advice: consequential amendments—Northern Ireland.

Government new clause 13—Independent advice: income tax exemption.

Government new clause 14—Sums or assets that may be designated as available for drawdown: Great Britain.

Government new clause 15—Provision about conversion of certain benefits for drawdown: Great Britain.

Government new clause 16—Provision about calculation of lump sums: Great Britain.

Government new clause 17—Restrictions on conversion of benefits during winding up etc: Great Britain.

Government new clause 18—Restriction on payment of lump sums during PPF assessment period: Great Britain.

Government new clause 19—Sums or assets that may be designated as available for drawdown: Northern Ireland.

Government new clause 20—Provision about conversion of certain benefits for drawdown: Northern Ireland.

Government new clause 21—Provision about calculation of lump sums: Northern Ireland.

Government new clause 22—Restrictions on conversion of benefits during winding up etc: Northern Ireland.

Government new clause 23—Restriction on payment of lump sums during PPF assessment period: Northern Ireland.

Government new clause 24—Rights to transfer benefits.

Government new clause 25—Restriction on transfers out of public service defined benefits schemes: Great Britain.

Government new clause 26—Reduction of cash equivalents: funded public service defined benefits schemes: Great Britain.

Government new clause 27—Public service defined benefits schemes: consequential amendments: Great Britain.

Government new clause 28—Restriction on transfers out of public service defined benefits schemes: Northern Ireland.

Government new clause 29—Reduction of cash equivalents: funded public service defined benefits schemes: Northern Ireland.

Government new clause 30—Public service defined benefits schemes: consequential amendments: Northern Ireland.

Government new clause 31—Meaning of “flexible benefit”.

Government new clause 32—Meaning of “cash balance benefit”.

Government new clause 33—Interpretation of Part 4.

Government amendments 4, 24, 26 to 30, 33, 34 to 37, 39 to 42, 44 to 46, 48.

Government new schedule 1—Rights to transfer benefits.

Government amendments 49, 50, 56 to 72.

Amendment 73, page 46, line 25, in schedule 4, at end insert—

‘(1A) Individuals delivering the pensions guidance must ask those receiving the guidance about other potential sources of retirement income in addition to defined contribution pension schemes; this must include an assessment of assets such as housing wealth, savings and investments.”

Government amendment 1.

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform (Disabled People)

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It will be obvious to the House that a large number of Members wish to speak and limited time is available. Therefore, after the next speaker, I will have to reduce the time limit for Back-Bench speeches to five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. A great many people still wish to speak, so I will have to reduce the time limit to four minutes.

DWP: Performance

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Well, I will send the Secretary of State all the letters I have had from his correspondence unit, not one of them signed by him. [Interruption.] Well, letters that I have written to the Department about the challenges facing—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says he replies to these letters; he has not written a single letter to me about—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The House is discussing an important point.

[Rachel Reeves]

If the Secretary of State now claims that he signs his letters “The correspondence unit”, perhaps he has replied, but I would have expected the Secretary of State to sign the letters and I will be very happy to forward all the letters to him. [Interruption.] He carries on chuntering from a sedentary position; I have not had a single letter about my casework from him. I will send them all to him, and perhaps he can write to me and my constituents explaining why they have been treated so abysmally by him and his Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I received an e-mail today from a constituent who is in considerable distress. She first applied for her PIP on 1 November 2013, so she has now been waiting for eight months. She is in work and she has always been physically fit but she has now just been struck by misfortune. She is in such distress and Atos has told her that her referral is subject to a quality check to see whether Atos is doing its job properly. Clearly, if it has taken eight months to get to this stage, it is not doing its job properly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Interventions must be short because a great many Members are waiting to speak and it is simply unfair if people make speeches instead of interventions.

[Rachel Reeves]

Eight months is far too long for anyone to have to wait and, clearly, any further delay is totally unacceptable.

On the work capability assessment, the Government spend £100 million a year on the contracted assessors, as well as tens of millions more on decisions that are appealed. Now, the process has almost reached “virtual collapse”, according to the senior judge overseeing the trials, with Atos walking away from the contract, the Government yet to identify a replacement and a backlog of more than 700,000 assessments in a queue. As a result of the disarray, we are seeing spiralling costs to the taxpayer, with the latest report from the Office for Budget Responsibility showing an £800 million increase in projected spending and leaked documents revealing that the Government now see this as one of the biggest fiscal risks, with spending on course to breach their own welfare cap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

That links in with what I was saying earlier. If the Government do not learn from their mistakes, how can they make improvements?

Universal credit is widely off track; the work capability assessment has almost completely broken down; personal independence payments are a fiasco; the Work programme is not working; the Youth Contract is a flop; support for families with multiple problems are falling far short of its target; the jobmatch website is an absurd embarrassment; the unfair and vindictive bedroom tax is costing more money than it saves; and the Government cannot even agree on a definition of child poverty let alone take action to deal with it.

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: to fail to deliver on one policy might be considered unfortunate; to miss one’s targets on two has to be judged careless; but to make such a complete mess of every single initiative the Secretary of State has attempted requires a special gift. It is something like a Midas touch: everything he touches turns into a total shambles.

Meanwhile, the Secretary of State will spew out dodgy statistics, rant and rave about Labour’s record, say “on time and on budget” until he is blue in the face and, in typical Tory style, blame the staff for everything that goes wrong. We have all long given up hope on the Secretary of State ever getting a grip on his Department. The real question today is when will the Prime Minister learn and take responsibility for the slow-motion car crash he has allowed to unfold? The DWP has the highest spending of any Government Department, and the responsibility for handling some of the most sensitive situations and some of the most vulnerable people in our country. We will all be paying a price for a long time to come for this Government’s failure to get a grip, and the lives of too many people, such as Malcolm Graham who is still waiting for his personal independence payment, have been irreparably damaged. It is clear that this Government will never take their responsibilities in this area with the seriousness that is needed. Let me pledge today that a Labour Government will. They will help those thousands of families who have been let down by the system and the millions of taxpayers who are seeing their money wasted. That change cannot come soon enough.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the Secretary of State, let me say that Members know perfectly well that making a long intervention instead of waiting to make a speech is simply rude and it is unacceptable. Interventions must be short. As there are so many Members waiting to speak, I will have to impose a time limit of six minutes on Back-Bench speeches, after the Secretary of State has spoken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lucas]

Give way!

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Mr Lucas, the Secretary of State is not giving way. Do not shout.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I said that I will give way, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I wanted to set out the successes of this Government against the nonsense of the Opposition’s debate.

At its peak, when I walked through the door, our inheritance was 5 million people on out-of-work benefits, a million of them for more than a decade. Youth unemployment had increased by nearly half and long-term unemployment doubled in just two years. One in five households was workless and the number in which no one had ever worked almost doubled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I make no apology for speaking up for constituents who are very concerned about what is happening to them, having been caught up in the system. He attacks us for cynicism. Is he also concerned by the report last week from Macmillan, which showed that 60% of people who went through the PIP assessment were waiting four and a half months, and a quarter were waiting six months? That could be somebody in my family, in his family or in our constituents’ families? That is not cynicism—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No one ever complains about someone raising issues to do with their constituents. That is what we are all here for. However, instead of scaremongering, we deal with these points. I do not say for a moment that what we are trying to do is anything but difficult. We are trying to reform a system that was in many senses broken. It was not delivering money to key people. DLA was, by common agreement, not doing what it was meant to do. The delivery times that the hon. Gentleman talks about are out of date. As regards terminally ill people, nobody should wait for more than 10 days under the PIP programme. That is happening.